Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens stand by the amendments, believing they are important, particularly in relation to the north-south pipeline—which Senator Minchin has been talking about—which we believe is a bad project. We do not believe that it is for the benefit of the basin and we do not believe it will deliver water for Melbourne, bearing in mind that the Murray-Darling Basin is in crisis, that we are reducing water supply and that we have to cut consumptive water use in the basin by between 42 and 53 per cent. The water that is being saved—once we prove that it is being saved—for the food bowl project should be going back into the Murray. There is no doubt in our or the community’s minds that that water needs to be in the Murray. We are spending billions of dollars buying back water only to have Victoria siphoning off some of the water that should be going back into the basin and taking it down to Melbourne. We also believe that the amendment that the Senate passed that dealt with a reduction in water use outside the basin was an important complementary amendment to ensure that, in a progressive manner, communities outside the basin also start to wean themselves off the basin.

I foreshadow that the Greens will be moving an amendment, as circulated in the chamber, to the motion that the opposition will be putting after we conclude the committee of the whole. I will get back to that in a minute.

The other amendments talked about critical human need, the authority’s functions, objects of the act, ministerial direction, full-time members of the authority, transparency, supplying $50 million in resources to support adjustment and restructuring for Lower Lakes and Coorong communities and the River Murray, and the subsequent amendment dealt with Water for Rivers projects that complemented the north-south pipeline. These are important amendments that we believe enhance the bill and therefore the Water Act. We believe that the act needs further work. We do not think the act is where it should be in delivering outcomes for the Murray-Darling Basin. We feel that these amendments help the act get there and we are disappointed that the opposition is not supporting them. As I said, we will be supporting those amendments, because we think, as I said, they enhance the Murray-Darling Basin.

However, having said that, we have also said very clearly on the record that we do not think the bill and the act go far enough in delivering an outcome for the Murray-Darling Basin in a timely manner. I remind the chamber that the basin plan—despite the fact that we are ensuring that this bill is through this parliament and the authority can start its work and despite all the efforts that we are all now making to get this debate concluded—does not come into effect until 2019. It will be 2019 before we start getting the water-sharing plans in Victoria actually in line with the basin plan. That is 11 years from now—11 years too long. I remind the chamber that the Greens sought to amend the bill to ensure that all catchment plans and water-sharing plans were brought into line with the basin plan within six months of it coming into operation in 2011. So, despite our ensuring that this bill does go through, we still do not get an outcome for the Murray-Darling Basin until 2019. If we were really in a ‘go slow’ process, I would hate to see how long that would take.

I flag that the Greens will be supporting the opposition amendment, although we will be seeking to amend it by including an additional clause that adds in the populations outside the basin. We do not believe that we can cut off those communities straight away, and we are not seeking to do that. But we are seeking to ensure that the message is sent to those communities that they need to start weaning themselves off the basin water. If they do not, there will not be any water for them anyway. This is the issue that has come up in debate both in this place and in the communities. People say, ‘You lot are trying to cut us off from the water.’ I am sorry, but the basin is going to do that itself, because the water will not be there. You are better off managing this change in a structured manner than waiting until suddenly the taps are not running anymore. What we are trying to say to these communities is let’s work together to see how we can actually start weaning you off this water, because the water is not going to be there in the future. Also, the Greens message is we need to be taking a much more coordinated and structured approach to the way we are going about restructuring in the basin, because let’s face it: that is what we are talking about; we are talking about restructuring. We have to reduce our water use to an extent that is going to have such a community impact, so we need to be acknowledging that now and working on that now. I think it is really dishonest to let farmers go out the back door without any help. Let us acknowledge it upfront and do it in a much more structured manner.

During the debate we did support in principle the things to do as to the issues around restructuring. We could not agree to the opposition amendment because we did not think it took enough of a holistic approach. Our clear message is: this bill—and this resulting act—will not deliver the change that we need unless we complement it with a strategic, coordinated approach of working with communities. We are saying to the government: please start working with communities to deliver that coordinated approach. Let all of us have an honest conversation with the communities about the need for restructuring and acknowledge that we have to reduce our water use, because it is going to happen anyway. It can happen with a great deal of pain or with some pain that we can help to manage. As a legislative body, we are not being honest if we do not acknowledge that.

I am disappointed that the opposition is not supporting these amendments. The Greens stick by these amendments. We totally reject the north-south pipeline as a most ineffective and inefficient way of dealing with Melbourne’s water problems. We are not denying that there is an issue, but the north-south pipeline is not the way to fix it. The water that is saved—and I will believe an independent audit will be held when I see an independent audit about the amount of water that is going to be saved—should be going back into the Murray. The Greens have never said that this is additional water coming out of the Murray. We know that it is supposed to be coming from savings. Our point is those savings should be going back into the Murray like everybody else’s savings are going back into the Murray.

Victoria is saying to the rest of the community: ‘We’ll take your $1 billion bribe to sign on but we won’t actually implement the basin plan until 2019 and, by the way, we want an extra 75 gigalitres’—although it is actually more; it is closer to 100 gigalitres—‘so we’ll take that as well, thanks very much.’ I have a little bit of a question about a whole-of-government approach that needed such a big bribe to get Victoria on board. In particular, the 75 gigalitres—and up to 100 gigalitres, depending on how much water is not going back into the groundwater through this process—are being supplied to Melbournians because they have not been efficient in dealing with their water through water conservation, bearing in mind that 400 gigalitres of stormwater is going out to sea. That is not sensible water planning. If that is what the future of the Murray is, I think the Murray is facing a lot more trouble than we thought and we are not going to get there as quickly as we thought. As I have said, the Greens stand by the amendments. Although we believed these amendments did not go far enough, they improve the bill and they are a good start.